On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 20:54 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > I'm not quite sure what you mean. We consider the kernel for every > schedule. What we haven't done yet is hold up the release for a > particular kernel. ^ That's what I mean. The kernel is pretty solid and you kernel folks take care of it for us, so us desktop developers don't need to worry about it or schedule around it (except in extraordinary circumstances... Skylake support you say?). > We often joke, but part of the burden of attempting to be first means > we're the first to hit issues before other distros do (first to > fail). > I agree microcode_ctl should have been in testing longer than a day. > Adding it to critpath would enforce that. I think it's somewhat > folly > to assume that any reasonable amount of time in testing is going to > catch every issue like this. When I mentioned updates spending less than a day in testing, I meant that in the general case; sorry it sounded like I implied that happened to this particular update. In fact it looks like it spent two days in testing. Still, I think it's reasonable that everything should spend at least a week in testing. Of course it won't catch every issue, but it would help.... (And it probably would not have caught this one: it was hardware-specific, and not triggered until the next kernel upgrade, and so it took over a week for the first bug report to appear.) Michael -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
